Non Compete Agreements for a min. wage food preparation job? What is going on here?

[PokerGuy]

I really need to re-think my position on this, because I'm <gasp> in agreement with Oldgamer on this. Such noncompete clauses aren't in place to protect the company from someone taking secret information or clients, they are in place to make it more difficult for employees to find better paying jobs and leave. That should not be allowed, it harms the free market.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Is this another one of those articles where their source is the Onion?

Either way the only response to something as stupid as this is LOL

 

[doubledeluxe]

I'd love to see them try to enforce this in a court of law. It is a frickin sandwich, not a highly tuned production line.

The point of a non-compete is to bog down and bankrupt an employee in court. The employee will almost always win (unless they genuinely stole trade secrets in which case the non-compete is irrelevant to the issue at hand) but it will cost them more than it's worth. Someone working at a sandwich shop has zero money and wouldn't even be able to take them to court. So what would happen is that they would get served papers stating that if they do not quit they will be sued or they new employer will be threatened. End result is that they are fired or quit.

It's strong arming.

 

[doubledeluxe]

That's pretty ridiculous. I'm sure some fresh, idiot MBA came up with that idea, not sure how he sold it to anybody with a brain. The cost of actually going after somebody for breaking their non-compete would be vastly higher than the cost to train some kid on the job.

My experience with companies that do this is that they have permanently staffed lawyers. For a sandwich shop this is really quite silly but odds are the owner has family that is a lawyer. For more wealthy companies who want to fuck over their employees they just budget a couple hundred thousand or more per year to keep their employees from leaving them for a better position. This makes great sense for them. If you have an employee who you are paying $80K a year but is making you $2M then paying a few hundred thousand dollars to keep them from leaving is a no brainer.

 

[Genx87]

you think a min wage kid has the funds to fight it?


though a min wage kid is more likely to say fuck you to them.

Im pretty sure some lawyer would work pro bono to smack a large corporation down and make a name for themselves.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Exactly. A sandwich shop doesn't really have clients.

Not true. A good sandwich shop will have corporate clients. It's an easy sell really since large companies use catering for their meetings.

 

[Brainonska511]

Im pretty sure some lawyer would work pro bono to smack a large corporation down and make a name home themselves.

Probably, but that also relies on expecting someone making minimum wage to know to go out and find a lawyer to defend himself or challenge the bs contract.

 

[doubledeluxe]

No lawyer would want to jump in the middle of this. It's expensive and takes a long time to solve. Plus the company is simply going to lie on the stand and waste your time in depositions. A good lawyer would just tell the kid to work outside the radius of the agreement. The real problem is when you sign a non-compete that keeps you out of an entire global industry. The solution to this problem is to not sign these agreements.

Had friends go through this. It took 2 years to resolve. They won, and the new company footed the bill for the legal battle, but it took 2 years. I don't remember the total cost for litigation and settlement but it cost both sides a lot. It might have gone better if the one side didn't give in an inch but to get this resolved in two years they chose to do so.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Another family friend went through this and got his life savings wiped out. The company completely had him by the balls. They offered him stock options in the company but of course they were common stock and they were rendered worthless when he left the company. So not only was all this "retirement" in the company gone he then had a massive legal battle that wiped him out. The way a legal battle goes is if you run out of money - you lose.

He was making $130,000 a year but making the company $2M a year. They hosed him.

They did it to everyone.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I doubt very seriously that such a "non-compete" would stand in the courts if they pursued it.

As far as getting laid off and wondering it the non-compete is still in force -- I am not sure of the answer and perhaps someone answered it in this thread (haven't read it all yet), but if I get laid off, I'm getting whatever job I can and I wish the company luck fighting me on it unless they want to pay me severance covering the non-compete period.

 

[BoberFett]

Not true. A good sandwich shop will have corporate clients. It's an easy sell really since large companies use catering for their meetings.

Yes, but the sandwich maker doesn't manage that account. A manager? Sure, I can see a non-compete there. But not the minimum wage mayo spreader.

 

[bshole]

Yes, but the sandwich maker doesn't manage that account. A manager? Sure, I can see a non-compete there. But not the minimum wage mayo spreader.

I spread some mayo on my wife's tummy this morning but I didn't get paid minimum wage to do it.....

 

[OutHouse]

That's pretty ridiculous. I'm sure some fresh, idiot MBA came up with that idea, not sure how he sold it to anybody with a brain. The cost of actually going after somebody for breaking their non-compete would be vastly higher than the cost to train some kid on the job.

this.

 

[Rebel44]

Non-compete agreements are pretty well regulated here - last time I checked it was limited to maximum of 2 years and during that time former employer had to pay you 50% of what you made in your previous job.

As for employer trying to screw me (like doubledeluxe described), after they would lose the case, they would not only have to pay my lawyer fees and any other related costs (its normal practice that loser pay for opponents lawyers up to some limits) + I would be able to sue them for defamation, stress caused by them etc.

 

[Dannar26]

That's pretty ridiculous. I'm sure some fresh, idiot MBA came up with that idea, not sure how he sold it to anybody with a brain. The cost of actually going after somebody for breaking their non-compete would be vastly higher than the cost to train some kid on the job.

Exactly.

What a waste of time for everyone.

 

[MrPickins]

lol That is funny.


Sure it does. Some people are random call-ins in need of delivery, but some delivery clients are solicited. We've been solicited by Jimmy Johns, and as a consequence use them fairly often. I don't know if we have a person we normally contact to set that up, but if so and he/she left and solicited us for the new employer we'd certainly give them a try. Typically I like to identify one or two responsible people and work through them, but I don't handle food delivery. Could be that after the initial solicitation, that person no longer has much contact with us.

I doubt that a non-compete clause suite would go far though. Sandwich shops typically have core delivery areas. If the new sandwich shop served the same area, the employee would undoubtedly be soliciting every business in the area, so it wouldn't be like the employee was taking specialized knowledge to find her former clients.

I should have been more clear.

The people that a "sandwich artist" would generally be interacting with could not be considered clients.

Non-compete clauses do make sense for salesmen and managerial staff.

 

[ElFenix]

I would tend to think the solicitors would be assistant managers rather than the minimum wage people - they probably just hit everyone with the non-compete on principle. But the people who solicit know whom to speak with as well as which accounts order often; both those things might be worth something as otherwise one is reduced to dropping off menus. For us, I think Jimmy Johns is one of the places where we are billed monthly, but I may be wrong as most of the time I have the food ordered it's because salesmen are paying for it. And when it is otherwise, I've never asked if we charge it to our account or put it on our credit card.

Either way, if we have someone who has always provided good service at Jimmy Johns and she leaves, we would try her new employer. But then we try most delivery places that solicit us, and using one depends more on the quality level of food and service since those of us who have food ordered usually (though not always) specify the place or at least the type of food.

It's an interesting question, I'll have to remember to ask our secretary about her procedure.

i'll tell you from experience that that sort of 'client list' confidential information is seen as bullshit by judges. especially for something as mundane as sandwiches.

 

[Fern]

My experience with companies that do this is that they have permanently staffed lawyers. For a sandwich shop this is really quite silly but odds are the owner has family that is a lawyer. For more wealthy companies who want to fuck over their employees they just budget a couple hundred thousand or more per year to keep their employees from leaving them for a better position. This makes great sense for them. If you have an employee who you are paying $80K a year but is making you $2M then paying a few hundred thousand dollars to keep them from leaving is a no brainer.

This isn't some mom & pop outfit.

This is a very large company and would have numerous lawyers on staff. They are franchise restaurants with over 2,000 locations throughout the US.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I should have been more clear.

The people that a "sandwich artist" would generally be interacting with could not be considered clients.

Non-compete clauses do make sense for salesmen and managerial staff.

Agreed.

I asked our secretary today and when she orders food, she orders it from whomever answers the phone. Nobody even remembers who it is that periodically calls on us or if it's the same person twice in a row. Of course, we're small potatoes compared to BCBS or TVA, but those clients would not be handled by entry level people either.

i'll tell you from experience that that sort of 'client list' confidential information is seen as bullshit by judges. especially for something as mundane as sandwiches.

Agreed, as well they should. In general, the law prohibits you from preventing someone from earning a living unless you're compensating them. Just because it's bad for you doesn't make it enforceable. But as has been said, this is likely just to discourage people from jumping ship once they learn that Jimmy John's secret ingredient is oregano.